reconvening a meeting

[Guest Nancy]

At our regular monthly June meeting, a motion was made to recess the meeting and reconvene at a later date (with the intent to initiate new members the following week but it never happened). Our regular July meeting is this week. The "plan" by the officers is to reconvene the meeting from June, vote on 4 additional applicants (under the June meeting), initiate the applicants approved in June AND July, then close the June meeting. The July meeting will then be opened and move forward as usual. I disagree with this because everything at the June meeting was completed EXCEPT initiation and closing the meeting. I believe we simply need to close the June meeting, open the July meeting and then proceed according to protocol with proper balloting of the 4 new applicants, then initiate everyone at the proper point in the meeting, and then move forward from there. I've looked in RONR and can't seem to find the answer.

Thoughts?

[Rob Elsman]

At our regular monthly June meeting, a motion was made to recess the meeting and reconvene at a later date (with the intent to initiate new members the following week but it never happened). Our regular July meeting is this week. The "plan" by the officers is to reconvene the meeting from June, vote on 4 additional applicants (under the June meeting), initiate the applicants approved in June AND July, then close the June meeting. The July meeting will then be opened and move forward as usual. I disagree with this because everything at the June meeting was completed EXCEPT initiation and closing the meeting. I believe we simply need to close the June meeting, open the July meeting and then proceed according to protocol with proper balloting of the 4 new applicants, then initiate everyone at the proper point in the meeting, and then move forward from there. I've looked in RONR and can't seem to find the answer.

Thoughts?

What exactly is your question about RONR?

[Guest Nancy]

If a meeting is recessed and reconvened at a later date, is it proper to go back in the order of business, vote on something that didn't exist at the meeting that was recessed, and then move forward OR is it proper to reconvene the previously recessed meeting, close said meeting, then open up a new meeting so the proper order of business can be followed?

[Rob Elsman]

If a meeting is recessed and reconvened at a later date, is it proper to go back in the order of business, vote on something that didn't exist at the meeting that was recessed, and then move forward OR is it proper to reconvene the previously recessed meeting, close said meeting, then open up a new meeting so the proper order of business can be followed?

The motion to Recess was misused. A recess is a short break or intermission--usually just a few minutes or hours. If I understand the facts correctly, the proper motion would have been an unprivileged motion to Adjourn--something like, "Mr. President, I move that the meeting be adjourned to meet again at the call of the chair."

You might want to review RONR (10th ed.), §§20, 21, pp. 222ff, to make sure you understand the distinction between these two motions.

[Guest Nancy]

It was a motion to recess and reconvene at a later date; I didn't make the motion; I'm simply trying to figure out how to move forward from this point. If it was incorrectly put forth, then lesson learned. My question still remains though - can something NOT discussed during the regular business order of the improperly recessed meeting then be brought up when the meeting reconvenes?

[Rob Elsman]

It was a motion to recess and reconvene at a later date; I didn't make the motion; I'm simply trying to figure out how to move forward from this point. If it was incorrectly put forth, then lesson learned. My question still remains though - can something NOT discussed during the regular business order of the improperly recessed meeting then be brought up when the meeting reconvenes?

When the motion to Recess was made, the presiding officer should have helped the maker frame a properly-formed motion to Adjourn before stating the question. I must leave the rest to you, since I do not know what was the exact wording of the motion that was actually adopted, nor am I able to determine what is the proper classification of this "reconvened" meeting. It doesn't seem to be an adjourned meeting (or is it?); but, it also doesn't seem to be a special meeting (or is it?). So, I'm afraid that I cannot give you a proper answer for the exact question that you asked.

[tctheatc]

RONR specifically uses the word "close" in talking about adjourn and recess. To adjourn is to close a meeting. A recess does not close a meeting. (pp 225 & 222 respectively). The wording and motion was improper, but it seems reasonably clear that the June meeting was closed. Plans to pick it up again never happened. It even sounds as if the plan to reconvene is at the next regular (july) meeting. So if a closed meeting means adjourned, it seems (to me, anyway) that's what it is. The June meeting adjourned. The July meeting starts as the July meeting.

[Dan Honemann]

It was a motion to recess and reconvene at a later date; I didn't make the motion; I'm simply trying to figure out how to move forward from this point. If it was incorrectly put forth, then lesson learned. My question still remains though - can something NOT discussed during the regular business order of the improperly recessed meeting then be brought up when the meeting reconvenes?

If this next meeting is an adjourned meeting (see RONR, pp. 90-91), which may well be the case, then the adjourned meeting simply picks up at the point where the previous meeting ended. The mere fact that something was not discussed during the previous meeting does not preclude its consideration at the adjourned meeting.